Exposing the Dark Forces Behind the Snowden Smears

[Magda Hassan]

I expect they had a backup or 20 but this is the end of journalism as we know it.

Guardian chief: UK had newspaper disks destroyed

By RAPHAEL SATTER


Aug. 19 7:23 PM EDT
Home » Edward Snowden » Guardian chief: UK had newspaper disks destroyed





LONDON (AP) British agents oversaw the destruction of an unspecified number of the Guardian newspaper's hard drives in an apparent bid to keep the fruit of Edward Snowden's leaks safe from Chinese spies, the paper's editor said Monday.
Alan Rusbridger made the claim in an opinion piece published on the Guardian's website, saying that a pair of staffers from British eavesdropping agency GCHQ monitored the process in what he called "one of the more bizarre moments in the Guardian's long history."
He said the hard drives were torn apart in the basement of the Guardian's north London office with "two GCHQ security experts overseeing the destruction ... just to make sure there was nothing in the mangled bits of metal which could possibly be of any interest to passing Chinese agents."
It was not clear exactly when the incident occurred. Rusbridger gave a vague timeline, suggesting that it happened within the past month or so. Guardian spokesman Gennady Kolker declined to comment further, and messages left with GCHQ after working hours were not immediately returned. An operator at the intelligence agency's switchboard said no one was available until Tuesday.
Rusbridger said the destruction was the culmination of weeks of pressure on the Guardian by British officials.
Shortly after his paper began publishing reports based on Snowden's leaks, he said he was contacted by "a very senior government official claiming to represent the views of the prime minister" who demanded the return or destruction of Snowden's material. There followed a series of increasingly tough meetings in which officials demanded the Guardian comply. Eventually, he said, officials threatened legal action, and that's when the editor allowed British agents into his basement.
A spokesman for British Prime Minister David Cameron declined comment.
Rusbridger said the destruction wouldn't curb the Guardian's reporting, suggesting that copies of the Snowden files were held elsewhere and that reporting would continue outside the U.K. He added that British police's recent detention of David Miranda the partner of Guardian reporter Glenn Greenwald and the seizure of the former's laptop, phones, and other devices would similarly have no effect on Greenwald's work.
Snowden's leaks published in the Guardian, The Washington Post, and other publications have exposed the details of the United States' global surveillance apparatus, sparking an international debate over the limits of American spying. And as lawmakers debate reforms and civil liberties group go to court, journalists have been wrestling with the implications of mass surveillance.
Rusbridger said Monday that the spies were growing so powerful "it may not be long before it will be impossible for journalists to have confidential sources."

[URL="http://bigstory.ap.org/article/guardian-chief-uk-spies-shredded-newsroom-disks"]http://bigstory.ap.org/article/guardian-chief-uk-spies-shredded-newsroom-disks

[/URL]

David Miranda, schedule 7 and the danger that all reporters now face

As the events in a Heathrow transit lounge and the Guardian offices have shown, the threat to journalism is real and growing

• • Alan Rusbridger
    
  • The Guardian, Tuesday 20 August 2013 07.30 AEST
    

Glenn Greenwald, left, with David Miranda, who was held for nine hours at Heathrow under schedule 7 of Britain's terror laws. Photograph: Ricardo Moraes/Reuters

In a private viewing cinema in Soho last week I caught myself letting fly with a four-letter expletive at Bill Keller, the former executive editor of the New York Times. It was a confusing moment. The man who was pretending to be me thanking Keller for "not giving a shit" used to be Malcolm Tucker, a foul-mouthed Scottish spin doctor who will soon be a 1,000-year-old time lord. And Keller will correct me, but I don't remember ever swearing at him. I do remember saying something to the effect of "we have the thumb drive, you have the first amendment".
The fictional moment occurs at the beginning of the DreamWorks film about WikiLeaks, The Fifth Estate, due for release next month. Peter Capaldi is, I can report, a very plausible Guardian editor.
This real-life exchange with Keller happened just after we took possession of the first tranche of WikiLeaks documents in 2010. I strongly suspected that our ability to research and publish anything to do with this trove of secret material would be severely constrained in the UK. America, for all its own problems with media laws and whistleblowers, at least has press freedom enshrined in a written constitution. It is also, I hope, unthinkable that any US government would attempt prior restraint against a news organisation planning to publish material that informed an important public debate, however troublesome or embarrassing.
On Sunday morning David Miranda, the partner of Guardian columnist Glenn Greenwald, was detained as he was passing through Heathrow airport on his way back to Rio de Janeiro, where the couple live. Greenwald is the reporter who has broken most of the stories about state surveillance based on the leaks from the former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. Greenwald's work has undoubtedly been troublesome and embarrassing for western governments. But, as the debate in America and Europe has shown, there is considerable public interest in what his stories have revealed about the right balance between security, civil liberties, freedom of speech and privacy. He has raised acutely disturbing questions about the oversight of intelligence; about the use of closed courts; about the cosy and secret relationship between government and vast corporations; and about the extent to which millions of citizens now routinely have their communications intercepted, collected, analysed and stored.
In this work he is regularly helped by David Miranda. Miranda is not a journalist, but he still plays a valuable role in helping his partner do his journalistic work. Greenwald has his plate full reading and analysing the Snowden material, writing, and handling media and social media requests from around the world. He can certainly use this back-up. That work is immensely complicated by the certainty that it would be highly unadvisable for Greenwald (or any other journalist) to regard any electronic means of communication as safe. The Guardian's work on the Snowden story has involved many individuals taking a huge number of flights in order to have face-to-face meetings. Not good for the environment, but increasingly the only way to operate. Soon we will be back to pen and paper.
Miranda was held for nine hours under schedule 7 of the UK's terror laws, which give enormous discretion to stop, search and question people who have no connection with "terror", as ordinarily understood. Suspects have no right to legal representation and may have their property confiscated for up to seven days. Under this measure uniquely crafted for ports and airport transit areas there are none of the checks and balances that apply once someone is in Britain proper. There is no need to arrest or charge anyone and there is no protection for journalists or their material. A transit lounge in Heathrow is a dangerous place to be.
Miranda's professional status much hand-wringing about whether or not he's a proper "journalist is largely irrelevant in these circumstances. Increasingly, the question about who deserves protection should be less "is this a journalist?" than "is the publication of this material in the public interest?"
The detention of Miranda has rightly caused international dismay because it feeds into a perception that the US and UK governments while claiming to welcome the debate around state surveillance started by Snowden are also intent on stemming the tide of leaks and on pursuing the whistleblower with a vengeance. That perception is right. Here follows a little background on the considerable obstacles being placed in the way of informing the public about what the intelligence agencies, governments and corporations are up to.
A little over two months ago I was contacted by a very senior government official claiming to represent the views of the prime minister. There followed two meetings in which he demanded the return or destruction of all the material we were working on. The tone was steely, if cordial, but there was an implicit threat that others within government and Whitehall favoured a far more draconian approach.
The mood toughened just over a month ago, when I received a phone call from the centre of government telling me: "You've had your fun. Now we want the stuff back." There followed further meetings with shadowy Whitehall figures. The demand was the same: hand the Snowden material back or destroy it. I explained that we could not research and report on this subject if we complied with this request. The man from Whitehall looked mystified. "You've had your debate. There's no need to write any more."
During one of these meetings I asked directly whether the government would move to close down the Guardian's reporting through a legal route by going to court to force the surrender of the material on which we were working. The official confirmed that, in the absence of handover or destruction, this was indeed the government's intention. Prior restraint, near impossible in the US, was now explicitly and imminently on the table in the UK. But my experience over WikiLeaks the thumb drive and the first amendment had already prepared me for this moment. I explained to the man from Whitehall about the nature of international collaborations and the way in which, these days, media organisations could take advantage of the most permissive legal environments. Bluntly, we did not have to do our reporting from London. Already most of the NSA stories were being reported and edited out of New York. And had it occurred to him that Greenwald lived in Brazil?
The man was unmoved. And so one of the more bizarre moments in the Guardian's long history occurred with two GCHQ security experts overseeing the destruction of hard drives in the Guardian's basement just to make sure there was nothing in the mangled bits of metal which could possibly be of any interest to passing Chinese agents. "We can call off the black helicopters," joked one as we swept up the remains of a MacBook Pro.
Whitehall was satisfied, but it felt like a peculiarly pointless piece of symbolism that understood nothing about the digital age. We will continue to do patient, painstaking reporting on the Snowden documents, we just won't do it in London. The seizure of Miranda's laptop, phones, hard drives and camera will similarly have no effect on Greenwald's work.
The state that is building such a formidable apparatus of surveillance will do its best to prevent journalists from reporting on it. Most journalists can see that. But I wonder how many have truly understood the absolute threat to journalism implicit in the idea of total surveillance, when or if it comes and, increasingly, it looks like "when".
We are not there yet, but it may not be long before it will be impossible for journalists to have confidential sources. Most reporting indeed, most human life in 2013 leaves too much of a digital fingerprint. Those colleagues who denigrate Snowden or say reporters should trust the state to know best (many of them in the UK, oddly, on the right) may one day have a cruel awakening. One day it will be their reporting, their cause, under attack. But at least reporters now know to stay away from Heathrow transit lounges.



[URL="http://bigstory.ap.org/article/guardian-chief-uk-spies-shredded-newsroom-disks"]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree...-reporters
[/URL]

[Peter Lemkin]

Increasingly, it looks as if the World we have all feared is either just before us in time, or has silently just passed. Yes, there are more draconian things they can [and will] do, but I ask all reading this - At what point does one consider that the line has been crossed; where there is no freedoms or rights inherent left to the Citizen anymore - only those the increasingly overbearing and watching over Government and Secret Government allow its serfs - and can withdraw without any legal process or rule of law?!

[Peter Lemkin]

The Obama administration has acknowledged it had advance notice British officials were going to detain David Miranda, the partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, who has revealed the National Security Agency's massive spy practices. Miranda was held Sunday at London's Heathrow Airport under Section 7 of the British Terrorism Act for nine hours the maximum time he could be detained without charge. Miranda has just announced legal action against the British Home Office for his detention. Meanwhile, The Guardian has revealed the British government threatened legal action against the newspaper unless it either destroyed Snowden's classified documents or handed them to British authorities. "At its core, what is at stake is the ability for a human being to have dignity and for journalists to have integrity with their sources, [threatening] the whole concept of a free democracy," says computer security researcher Jacob Appelbaum, who has been detained and questioned numerous times at airports. "And I don't mean that as hyperbole, but if everything is under surveillance, how is it that you can have a democracy? How is it that you can organize a political function, or have confidentiality with a constituent, or a source, or with a friend or a lover? That's an erasure of fundamental things that we have had for quite some time." We're also joined by longtime British attorney Gareth Peirce.


Transcript

AARON MATÉ: We're going to turn now to the issue of the NSA and the revelations that have just come out with the British government. The British government now is under fire for its detention of David Miranda, the partner of journalist Glenn Greenwald, who has exposed all of these stories on NSA surveillance based on the leaks of Edward Snowden. Miranda has just announced legal action against the British Home Office for his detention at London's Heathrow Airport. He was held on Sunday as he passed through Heathrow on his way home to Brazil, where he and Greenwald live. Miranda was detained under Schedule 7 of Britain's Terrorism Act, which allows police to hold someone at an airport for up to nine hours for questioning about whether they're involved in acts of terrorism. He was detained for the full nine hours allowed and finally released after British authorities seized his mobile phone, laptop, cellphone and USB thumb drives.
Miranda had been in Germany visiting U.S. filmmaker Laura Poitras, who works with Greenwald in reporting on the files leaked to them by Edward Snowden. His flights were paid for by The Guardian, and a spokesperson for the newspaper says he "often assists" with Glenn Greenwald's work. Glenn Greenwald told The New York Times Miranda was in Berlin to deliver documents to Poitras related to his investigation into government surveillance and get other documents from Poitras to bring back home.
AMY GOODMAN: On Monday, Miranda described his ordeal upon his return to Brazil.

DAVID MIRANDA: [translated] I stayed in a room with three different agents that were entering and exiting. They spoke to me, asking me questions about my whole life. They took my computer, my video game, cellphone, everything.

AMY GOODMAN: In a statement, the Brazilian government said Miranda's detention is, quote "without justification." What they said waswhat they said, the statement, wasis "without justification, since it involves an individual against whom there are no charges that can legitimate the use of that legislation. The Brazilian Government expects that incidents such as the one that happened to [Miranda] today do not repeat." Greenwald himself said the detention would not deter him from future reports.

GLENN GREENWALD: [translated] I will be far more aggressive in my reporting from now on. I'm going to publish many more documents. I'm going to publish things on England, too. I have many documents on England's spy system.

AARON MATÉ: The press freedom group Reporters Without Borders issued a statement in response to Miranda's detention that read, quote, "The world's most repressive states often identify journalism with terrorism and now the British authorities have crossed a red line by resorting to this practice. ... By acting in this arbitrary way, the British authorities have just emphasized how necessary and legitimate Snowden's and Greenwald's revelations were."
Meanwhile, on Monday, the White House confirmed it was notified before Miranda was taken into custody. This is White House Deputy Secretary Josh Earnest.

DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY JOSH EARNEST: There was a heads-up that was provided by the British government. So thisagain, this is something that we had an indication was likely to occur, but it's not something that we've requested. And it's something that was done specifically by theby the British law enforcement officials there. The United States was not involved in that decision or in that action, so if you have questions aboutif you have questions about it, then I would refer you to the British government.

AMY GOODMAN: The detention of Glenn Greenwald's partner led his newspaper, The Guardian, to reveal another explosive revelation of media intimidation by the British government. On Monday, The Guardian editor, Alan Rusbridger, revealed the British government threatened legal action against the newspaper unless it either destroyed Snowden's classified documents or handed them to British authorities. Rusbridger says that after The Guardian published several stories based on Snowden's material, a British official advised him, quote, "You've had your fun. Now we want the stuff back." Two officials from the GCHQ, the NSA's British counterpart, then visited The Guardian's London offices and looked on as computers containing Snowden's material were physically destroyed. Rusbridger said The Guardian agreed to destroy the hard drives knowing the paper's reporters can continue their work abroad. He wrote, quote, "We will continue to do patient, painstaking reporting on the Snowden documents, we just won't do it in London."
Well, for more, we're joined by Jacob Appelbaum, computer security researcher, developer and advocate for the Tor Project, a system enabling its users to communicate anonymously on the Internet. He has been stopped and questioned numerous times while traveling. We will also be joined by the longtime British attorney Gareth Peirce, who is on the phone with us.
But, Jacob Appelbaum, let's begin with you. Can you respond to what happened to David Miranda at Heathrow Airport?
JACOB APPELBAUM: Sure. Effectively, what we know right now is that the British government has used antiterrorism legislation inappropriately, as it specifically is the case that when they hold someone under this legislation, they are only supposed to do so to determine if in fact they can make an arrest. The fact that he was flagged before he even got on the airplane and that the U.S. was notified suggests that it was a completely unlawful detention, even under this legislation. So they're even breaking their egregiously unethical, immoral laws, which is terrible. And for David, I feel for him, having experienced that many times.
AARON MATÉ: Well, Jacob, can you tell us about your own story, your own experience? And, in fact, in this case, you have particular insight because you've been detained, and also your partner has been detained, as well, as also occurred to Glenn Greenwald.
JACOB APPELBAUM: Yeah. I mean, so, you know, to describe this process, this is a process of intimidation. Right. And working with Der Spiegel here in Germany, where I am now, I would not want to undergo this process again, so I, for example, am not with you in New York today, specifically because these kinds of intimidation tactics, they work, to a degree. And that is to say, when you're held in a room, told that you're a terrorist, your property is stolen, you are denied access to your lawyer, as is the case with David, these kinds of things, they really impact you. And they impact family members. They impact friends and friendships. And they, of course, impact the relationship with a source. It's extremely difficult to maintain source confidentiality and to be able to keep a promisewhich is the core of journalistic integritywhen these types of things are taking place.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to bring Gareth Peirce into this conversation. Gareth Peirce is the British attorney who has represented a number of Guantánamo prisoners, speaking to us on the telephone now. Can you explain what this Schedule 7, this Section 7, of the British law is and how it was that David Miranda was held under this terrorism clause?
GARETH PEIRCE: From what one can judge, the stopping and use of the Schedule 7 provision of the Terrorism Act in his case is completely unlawfulwas unlawful, is unlawful. The power given at a point of entry, at a portand only at a portis for a police officer or an immigration officer to have an unusual degree of power; however, it's limited. It allows that officer to satisfy himself or herself that the person he's examining is not involved, directly involved, in the instigation, commission of acts of terrorism. It's very specific. And that person has to be the suspect. It's an unusual power in that it doesn't allow the person to have a right against self-incrimination. It's the one point within the jurisdiction in which you are required, if you are the interrogatee, to answer questions, on pain of a criminal penalty if you fail to answer. So you're required to answer, and it's for that very specific purpose.
Now, if it's used for an ulterior motive, then it's unlawful. And there have been succession of legal challenges to its use. It's not the first time that those stopping someone have done so to put questions from another agency or for the purpose of trying to put right an inquiry that was based upon torture of that individual abroad, trying to effectively launder the interrogation through some more jurisdictionally friendly means. But the courts have said an ulterior motive and an ulterior purpose is not permitted. And it's absolutely clear how come those who stopped Mr. Mirandahow can they possibly, possibly have said that they required to satisfy themselves he was not directly involved in instigation or commission of acts of terrorism?
AMY GOODMAN: Gareth Peirce
GARETH PEIRCE: It's a million miles from
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go to yesterday's news conference at the White House. This is a reporter questioning Josh Earnest, the White House spokesperson.

REPORTER: You talked about the Mubarak detention as being an Egyptian legal matter. You talk about Morsipolitically motivated detention. And then with regard to Mr. Greenwald's partner, you called it a mere law enforcement action. Given that the White House has never been shy about criticizing detention policies overseas, do you have any concerns at all about the U.K.'s law enforcement action in this case?

DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY JOSH EARNEST: Well, what I can say is I don't have a specific reaction other than to observe to you that this is a decision that was made by the British government and not one that was made at the request or with the involvement of the United States government.

REPORTER: Sobut you're not going to go as far as to say it's wrong or it's cause for concern? You're just separating yourself entirely from it?

DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY JOSH EARNEST: Well, I'm separatingwhat I'm suggesting is that this is a decision that was made by the British government withoutyou know, not atwithout the involvement and not at the request of the United States government.

AMY GOODMAN: That was the spokesperson at the White House, Josh Earnest. Gareth Peirce, if you could respond to that and also this extraordinary story that The Guardian has just revealed, that they were forced to destroy the hard drives that had the Snowden documents on them, the documents that he had leaked.
GARETH PEIRCE: Well, I think that the attempt tothe denial, the deniability of the involvement of our two governments jointly or mutually lacks credibility now, at this point of time, given the primacy with which our intelligence agencies have been unlawfully conducting surveillance on all of our citizens. However, it is an improper purpose if another government is feeding in questions and obtaining the product of those questions for purposes that are not defined by the statute, and these cannot have been defined. But you can bet your boots that Mr. Miranda's phone was taken, its contents copied. Any computer he had would have been taken, its contents copied. And even if they're given right back at the conclusion of the nine-hour detentionit's not arrest. It's not arrest. It's a detaining, keeping someone for the purpose of examining them. If the police have a reasonable suspicion, they arrest you and have to arrest within nine hours. But that didn't happen here.
And any challenge, any challenge to this detention would undoubtedly involve the questioning as to the purpose. And if the purpose were revealed, as it has been in more than one legal challenge, to be simply for the purpose of obtaining information of a wide-ranging kind, that makes it unlawful, and will be an interesting exercise were Mr. Miranda to pursue it from now on in. As to The Guardian, maybe theymaybe they are conducting a tactical maneuverI know notin order toit wouldn't be the first time that the authorities have gone fortook Guardian documentation. They did it a long time ago and used a particularly clumsy mechanism of a production order that The Guardian successfully withstood. However, I don't know their reasoning, and I wouldn't comment on that.
AMY GOODMAN: We're going to break and come back to this discussion. And we'reGareth Peirce, we want to thank you very much for being with us, a well-known British attorney, has represented a number of prisoners at Guantánamo, among others. We're also speaking with Jacob Appelbaum, who is in Berlin, which is where David Miranda was, which is where Laura Poitras is working. As Jacob points out, he cannot come into the United States right now, or is concerned, if he does, what will happen to him. He is a computer security researcher. We'll be back with him in a moment.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: We turn right now to a show we did about a year ago that among our guests was Jacob Appelbaum, our guest today, who's in Berlin, and Laura Poitras. On Sunday, The New York Times Magazine profiled Laura Poitras, the journalist who filmed the Guardian interview with Edward Snowden in Hong Kong and had a byline on two of the key articles about the ongoing NSA revelations. Snowden first reached out to Laura Poitras before Glenn Greenwald. She's an award-winning filmmaker who's been discussing issues of privacy and state surveillance for years. Last April, Juan González and I spoke to Laura and asked her to describe the difficulties she faces with immigration officers here in the United States when she returns to the country.

LAURA POITRAS: I've been stopped at the border since 2006, since I started working on a series of films looking at U.S. post-9/11. And so, I've beenI've actually lost count of how many times I've been detained at the border, but it's, I think, around 40 times. And

AMY GOODMAN: Four-zero.

LAURA POITRAS: Four-zero, right. And on this particular trip, lately they've been actually sending someone from the Department of Homeland Security to question me in the departing city, so I was questioned in London about what I was doing. I told them I was a journalist and that, you know, my work is protected, and I wasn't going to discuss it. And then, on this particular occasion, I landed at Newark Airport, and theywhat they do when I'm flying, they do passport control inspection at the gate. So they make everyone who's deplaning show their passport. And so, that's how they

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: So they don't even wait for you to get to Immigration.

LAURA POITRAS: No, I don't getI don't get into Immigration. I get the escorted treatment from

AMY GOODMAN: So they make everyone show the passport, until they get to you.

LAURA POITRAS: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: And then they take you off the plane.

LAURA POITRAS: And then they take me away.

AMY GOODMAN: That's Laura Poitras. What she went on to say is that what infuriated them the most and what they said she couldn't do was take notes on her detention and the questions she was being asked. That was a fascinating hour, which I encourage people to go to at democracynow.org, which was with Laura Poitras, with Jacob Appelbaum, our guest now in Berlin, and William Binney, who was a top NSA analyst who quit, another whistleblower, who alsothe federal authorities moved in on his house, on his wife, his kid and himself, put a gun to him in the shower, when he was there. Jacob Appelbaum, you are in Berlin right now, where Laura Poitras is. Are you working together? You also did an interview with Edward Snowden for Der Spiegel about a month ago that was published.
JACOB APPELBAUM: Yeah, that's right. I'm working with Der Spiegel, as well as a number of other publications here in Berlin, as an investigative journalist, while also continuing my work with the Tor Projecttwo hats. It's a little complicated, but that's essentially correct.
AMY GOODMAN: And what do you think is most significant about what Edward Snowden has revealed, and also the treatment of him, as well as others, including yourself, before and since?
JACOB APPELBAUM: Well, as far as what Snowden has revealed, I think when Ron Wyden suggests that what has been revealed is merely the tip of the iceberg, that suggests something extremely terrifying, and that suggests that what Snowden has revealed is in fact just the tip of the iceberg. And what he's revealed so far is planetary-wide surveillance without warrants, without due process, without just cause, where most of the legislation is either secret or secretly interpreted. And in a few cases where there may be something that resembles judicial oversight, it's a kangaroo court with no opposition. And the people that are supposed to do oversight in the United States are either corrupted by the process, or they simply do not understand it and are unqualified to be involved in that oversight.
So, for me, when I think of these things, what I see right now is the birth of a generation of, unfortunately, dissidence. When Alan Rusbridger suggests that his journalists must work abroad, that is a terrifying and chilling thought. I mean, there's a reason that the American government was started, and there's a reason that the American Revolution shot the British. But let's be clear. The United Kingdom is a modern, reasonable democracy, in many ways. And the idea that you would, as a journalist, need to work abroad is appalling. But this is also true for other journalists working abroad on this, in the sense that Glenn is in Brazil and Laura is in Germany, I am in Germany. Many people who care about telling these stories are honestly afraid of illegal action, or supposedly legal action, that could result in devastating and horrible outcomes, merely by the fact that the people starting them have a lot to lose and they're willing to take any action, especially classist action, where you would have to spend your life's savings, for example, on legal support. So this, to me, is the scariest thing, because what Snowden has revealed is in the public interest, and that, to me, suggests that when the public is in fact interested and the press is suppressed, that is terrifying to imagine it as the tip of the iceberg.
AARON MATÉ: Jacob, as we talk about David Miranda, the partner of Glenn Greenwald, can you talk about what happened to your fiancée in your home?
JACOB APPELBAUM: Sure. I tend to not talk much about this, because it's not my story. But many people around me, including my partner, have experienced some different kinds of extrajudicial harassment. In her case, it's the case that she woke up with two men prowling outside of her house wearing night vision goggles, watching her sleep at 3:00 in the morning for about half an hour. We believe that someone was trying to plant a bug inside of her house. And I think this was intimidation. And I feel like either they are the worst, most bungling FBI or other intelligence agents in Seattle, or perhaps they didn't realize the intimidation would backfire. But this is a kind of state terrorism. And when she attempted to file a police report in Seattle, in fact, the Seattle police laughed her off until we were able to involve the ACLU. And it was only when the ACLU was involved would they even take a police report. That was the third time she tried. And, of course, attempts to FOIA information about this do not return information. We're being stonewalled even for processing notes about our FOIAs, so the so-called meta-FOIA. And, yeah, I mean, it's clear that it's political harassment.
And when I've gone through borders, similar to what David has experienced, you know, I've actually been, literally, for a time, disappeared by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. For example, when we were returning from Serbia, where I was giving a lecture and she was doing an art performance, the U.S. government literally told her that I did not exist, after they had taken me, and they would notyeah, it was horrible for her. They would not let her even see me. They wouldn't acknowledge that they had taken me. They told her she was mistaken, maybe even that she was crazy. And that's a targeted, specific thing, where they are allowed to lie to you, where they suggest that you do not have a right to a lawyer, where they will withhold a bathroom, where they will threaten you with suggestions of rape in prison. And then your loved ones will also be targeted by this in various ways, especially if they're traveling with you. They will experience some serious terror.
AMY GOODMAN: Jacob Appelbaum, what is at stake here? Can you explain, for people who are confused? I mean, in the United States, overwhelmingly people think that Edward Snowden is a whistleblower, not a traitor. But talk about what is at stake in the United States and around the world right now.
JACOB APPELBAUM: Sure. I think, at its core, what is at stake is the ability for a human being to have dignity and for journalists to have integrity with their sources. And from that, I believe that it threatens the whole concept of a free democracy. This is, I think, in a sense, being shown in the last 48 hours to the extreme. And I don't mean that as hyperbole. But if everything is under surveillance, how is it that you can have a democracy? How is it that you can organize a political function or have confidentiality with a constituent or with a source, or with a friend or with a lover? That's fundamentally an erasure of fundamental things that we have had for quite some time.
And planetary surveillance has very serious concerns, not the least of which is economic espionage, and not the least of which, I think, for me, personally, is about journalistic source protection. I mean, how is it that we will be able to protect our sources if there's no way to securely meet, no way to communicate about having a meeting, no way to actually communicate about basic facts? There's no such thing as on or off the record, when in fact you don't control the record. And it's not merely a matter of whether or not we have something to hide, because it is not us that will decide whether we have something to hide. It is an analyst somewhere. It is a machine learning algorithm somewhere.
And this is the thing that is perhaps the most terrifying: Because people are flagged, then other people are dispatched. Each person plays their role, and more and more a machine plays that role, a machine that does not understand constitutional protections, does not understand the Magna Carta or the Bill of Rights, does not understand humanity. It's a machine. And the humans, they behave like machines, too, which is a great fear, that humans will start to behave like machines. And so, what is at stake is in fact democracy, where we still have it, and the free press.

[Peter Lemkin]

US total surveillance: time to impeach?

Posted on July 16, 2013 by admin

Thanks to NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden who has just been nominated for the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize the United States Government has been exposed as the biggest hacker of all time, stealing data not only from its allies (via its closest allies) and its foes alike but also from ordinary people globally. This is larceny on a grand scale and has nothing to do with national security, let alone concerns about terrorism. Further, it is patently obvious that in organising these mass surveillance programs as revealed by Mr. Snowden the US Administration has contravened the American Constitution. Consequently, senior officials in the Administration should now be prosecuted and its Commander-in-Chief, Barack Obama, impeached.
Meanwhile, according to journalist Glenn Greenwald a so-called dead man's pact has been arranged to ensure that no harm or threat of capture is made to Mr. Snowden. Here is what Mr.Greenwald told The Daily Beast about the precautions taken by Snowden… He "has taken extreme precautions to make sure many different people around the world have these archives to insure the stories will inevitably be published." Greenwald added that the people in possession of these files "cannot access them yet because they are highly encrypted and they do not have the passwords." But, Greenwald said, "if anything happens at all to Edward Snowden, he told me he has arranged for them to get access to the full archives." Elsewhere , be added, "The U.S. government should be on its knees every day praying that nothing happens to Snowden, because if something happens to him, all the information would be revealed and that would be its worst nightmare."

It is pointless, therefore, for the US Government to try and restrict Mr. Snowden's liberty any longer and he should be able to travel anywhere he wishes and reside in any country that welcomes him. Moreover, the US Government must cease its bullying of other countries (or organisations) that merely wish to assist Mr. Snowden in his quest. Indeed, the UN Declaration on Territorial Asylum 1967 states that any country has the right to grant asylum to anyone for any reason without fear of retribution. In making threats to countries such as Venezuela, Ecuador and Russia, the United States is in direct contravention of this declaration, to which it is a signatory.
Three days ago, as part of Operation Flight of Liberty, Phase 1, Mr. Snowden announced that he would apply for temporary asylum with Russia but would ultimately aim to take up an offer for permanent asylum with a Latin American country, once his travel arrangements have been secured. At the same time he requested the assistance of the international community to help secure his safe passage once he is able to travel. Organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have vast experience when it comes to lobbying and influencing opinion generally, but do not have the necessary resources to ensure Mr. Snowden's safety.
For Phase 2 of Operation Flight of Liberty, the most viable option available to Mr. Snowden may well see a complex travel arrangement involving Russia as coordinator, the governments of several Latin American countries as guarantors, prominent persons (e.g. Nobel Peace Prize laureates) as human shields, and a flight path that avoids US and allies' airspace. The temporary asylum offered by Russia will provide the time needed to plan such an operation.
Meanwhile, over the past few days there have been more revelations….Slate haspublished an article about how Microsoft has been providing to the NSA details of all Skype communications for some years. Here is an extract… "The Guardian published the latest in a series of scoops about the scope of the NSA's spying programs, based on documents disclosed by former contractor Edward Snowden. The report outlines how Microsoft secretly worked with the NSA to help the agency tap into its email and chat services, including Outlook.com and Hotmail. Notably, the Guardian also cites documents showing that work began on integrating Skype into the NSA's Internet surveillance program PRISM in November 2010, several months before Microsoft purchased the service from U.S. private equity firms. By February 2011, the NSA was able to monitor Skype audio calls. In addition, by July last year, the NSA reportedly boasted that a new capability had tripled the amount of Skype video calls being collected through PRISM. These details compound recent revelations about Skype's cooperation with the U.S. government. Last month, the Post reported that the NSA has a "User's Guide for PRISM Skype Collection" that outlines how it can eavesdrop on Skype "when one end of the call is a conventional telephone and for any combination of audio, video, chat, and file transfers' when Skype users connect by computer alone." About two weeks later, the New York Times reported that, five years ago, before Microsoft acquired Skype, Skype initiated an internal program called "Project Chess" to explore how it could make Skype calls readily available to the government."
Here is a timeline of all the NSA revelations, as published by the Guardan.
Here is a good overview article on Echelon, demonstrating how the surveillance programs have been evolving over decades and have nothing to do with countering terrorism but are more akin to a dystopian reality that even Orwell could not have dreamt of. Finally, here is a good overview of the US surveillance state.

[Peter Lemkin]

Greenwald: Snowden's Files Are Out There if Anything Happens' to Him

by Eli Lake Jun 25, 2013 1:36 PM EDT

Snowden has shared encoded copies of all the documents he took so that they won't disappear if he does, Glenn Greenwald tells Eli Lake.

As the U.S. government presses Moscow to extradite former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden, America's most wanted leaker has a plan B. The former NSA systems administrator has already given encoded files containing an archive of the secrets he lifted from his old employer to several people. If anything happens to Snowden, the files will be unlocked.

Glenn Greenwald, who first reported former NSA contractor Edward Snowden's disclosure of government surveillance programs, speaks to reporters in June at his hotel in Hong Kong. (Vincent Yu/AP)
Glenn Greenwald, the Guardian journalist who Snowden first contacted in February, told The Daily Beast on Tuesday that Snowden "has taken extreme precautions to make sure many different people around the world have these archives to insure the stories will inevitably be published." Greenwald added that the people in possession of these files "cannot access them yet because they are highly encrypted and they do not have the passwords." But, Greenwald said, "if anything happens at all to Edward Snowden, he told me he has arranged for them to get access to the full archives."

The fact that Snowden has made digital copies of the documents he accessed while working at the NSA poses a new challenge to the U.S. intelligence community that has scrambled in recent days to recover them and assess the full damage of the breach. Even if U.S. authorities catch up with Snowden and the four classified laptops the Guardian reported he brought with him to Hong Kong the secrets Snowden hopes to expose will still likely be published.

A former U.S. counterintelligence officer following the Snowden saga closely said his contacts inside the U.S. intelligence community "think Snowden has been planning this for years and has stashed files all over the Internet." This source added, "At this point there is very little anyone can do about this."

The arrangement to entrust encrypted archives of his files with others also sheds light on a cryptic statement Snowden made on June 17 during a live chat with The Guardian. In the online session he said, "All I can say right now is the U.S. government is not going to be able to cover this up by jailing or murdering me. Truth is coming, and it cannot be stopped."

Last week NSA Director Keith Alexander told the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence that Snowden was able to access files inside the NSA by fabricating digital keys that gave him access to areas he was not allowed to visit as a low-level contractor and systems administrator. One of those areas included a site he visited during his training that Alexander later told reporters contained one of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court orders published by The Guardian and The Washington Post earlier this month.

U.S. politicians were visibly upset when news broke of Snowden's trip to Russia.

It's unclear what else is in the Snowden archive. The Guardian and The Washington Post have already published slides from a classified presentation on a program known as Prism that gives the NSA access to data on non-U.S. persons from Internet companies like Google and Facebook. The newspapers have also published the "minimization procedures" approved by Attorney General Eric Holder to make sure this collection does not include U.S. persons without a warrant and a top-secret presidential directive approving offensive cyber operations.

Greenwald said that he himself has thousands of documents from Snowden that he is continuing to examine. That figure is considerably higher than the 200 documents that Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the chairwoman of the Senate Select Committee, said over the weekend that she was told Snowden possessed.

"I don't know for sure whether [Snowden] has more documents than the ones he has given me," Greenwald said. "I believe he does. He was clear he did not want to give to journalists things he did not think should be published."

In addition to providing documents to The Guardian and The Washington Post,Snowden has also given interviews to the South China Morning Post, an English-language newspaper in Hong Kong, which reported that Snowden has disclosed the Internet Protocol addresses for computers in China and Hong Kong that the NSA monitored. That paper also printed a story claiming the NSA collected the text-message data for Hong Kong residents based on a June 12 interview Snowden gave the paper.

"He was not trying to harm the U.S. government; he was trying to shine light on it."

Greenwald said he would not have published some of the stories that ran in theSouth China Morning Post. "Whether I would have disclosed the specific IP addresses in China and Hong Kong the NSA is hacking, I don't think I would have," Greenwald said. "What motivated that leak though was a need to ingratiate himself to the people of Hong Kong and China."

However, Greenwald said that in his dealings with Snowden the 30-year-old systems administrator was adamant that he and his newspaper go through the document and only publish what served the public's right to know. "Snowden himself was vehement from the start that we do engage in that journalistic process and we not gratuitously publish things," Greenwald said. "I do know he was vehement about that. He was not trying to harm the U.S. government; he was trying to shine light on it."

Greenwald said Snowden for example did not wish to publicize information that gave the technical specifications or blueprints for how the NSA constructed its eavesdropping network. "He is worried that would enable other states to enhance their security systems and monitor their own citizens." Greenwald also said Snowden did not wish to repeat the kinds of disclosures made famous a generation ago by former CIA spy, Philip Ageewho published information after defecting to Cuba that outed undercover CIA officers. "He was very insistent he does not want to publish documents to harm individuals or blow anyone's undercover status," Greenwald said. He added that Snowden told him, "Leaking CIA documents can actually harm people, whereas leaking NSA documents can harm systems."

Greenwald also said his newspaper had no plans to publish the technical specifications of NSA systems. "I do not want to help other states get better at surveillance," Greenwald said. He added, "We won't publish things that might ruin ongoing operations from the U.S. government that very few people would object to the United States doing."

In this sense Greenwald is applying a more traditional journalistic approach to publishing classified information than WikiLeaks, the anti-secrecy organization that published hundreds of thousands of sensitive diplomatic cables and intelligence reports from Afghanistan and Iraqinitially without removing the names of individuals who were placed at risk after their interactions with U.S. officials in dangerous places were made public. "I am supportive of WikiLeaks, but I am doing something different," Greenwald said.

For now, the FBI has taken a keen interest in the leak of FISA court documents. Those documents are some of the most closely guarded secrets in the U.S. intelligence community. As of last week, the FBI was investigating whether Snowden may have obtained those documents from a leak inside the secret FISA court.

Thus far, The Guardian and The Washington Post have only published FISA documents that disclosed the wholesale collection of telephone metadata, but not the authorization to monitor the electronic communications of individuals. Greenwald declined to say whether or not he possessed FISA court warrants authorizing surveillance of a specific individual.

For now, Greenwald said he is taking extra precautions against the prospect that he is a target of U.S. surveillance. He said he began using encrypted email when he began communicating with Snowden in February after Snowden sent him a YouTube video walking him through the procedure to encrypt his email.

"When I was in Hong Kong, I spoke to my partner in Rio via Skype and told him I would send an electronic encrypted copy of the documents," Greenwald said. "I did not end up doing it. Two days later his laptop was stolen from our house and nothing else was taken. Nothing like that has happened before. I am not saying it's connected to this, but obviously the possibility exists."

When asked if Greenwald believed his computer was being monitored by the U.S. government. "I would be shocked if the U.S. government were not trying to access the information on my computer. I carry my computers and data with me everywhere I go."

[Peter Lemkin]

Sadly, I predict several convenient 'accidental deaths' to occur to many who know Snowden [and his ilk such as Manning, Assange, and many others], and are working with him/them.

The Death Star that runs America and the World will stop at nothing to prevent the full truth of their crimes and immorality from coming out........it would be bad for 'business'.

[Kenneth Kapel]

Has Mr. Snowden reveiled anything of consequence so far ? Is this some sort of "limited handout ?" Now the death of Michael Hastings is something that is of more concern. IMO, and I have no proof of this is that Hasting's was a real revealer of perfidy by the nation's military-intelligence elite and that Snowden is just show. Webster Tarpley, who is usually right in his analysis of world events, thinks Snowden is a fake whistleblower. Btw I just noticed that The Huffington Post is carrying a story that Mr. Hastings was drug addled at the time of "his accident."

[Magda Hassan]

Has Mr. Snowden reveiled anything of consequence so far ? Is this some sort of "limited handout ?" Now the death of Michael Hastings is something that is of more concern. IMO, and I have no proof of this is that Hasting's was a real revealer of perfidy by the nation's military-intelligence elite and that Snowden is just show. Webster Tarpley, who is usually right in his analysis of world events, thinks Snowden is a fake whistleblower. Btw I just noticed that The Huffington Post is carrying a story that Mr. Hastings was drug addled at the time of "his accident."

Clearly it is not just show. They sat there pretending it was no big deal when Wikileaks started publishing their documents and cables but they have been increasingly breaking out in sweat and now the panic has set in to the point they are forcing down the planes of heads of state and sending the bovver boys into international newspapers to smash their hard drives. Snowden's revelations are highly embarrassing and completly exposing the real nature of the US and UK and Australian states (and some others). If they get their hands on him he will never see daylight again. It is because of the reserve insurance copies that nothing worse has happened.

[Peter Lemkin]

Miranda interrogation, Guardian raid: Britain now the Iran of Europe
Posted on August 20, 2013 by admin


Britain may now be categorised as a pariah state. Over the last 24 hours it was revealed that the offices of one of the world's most respected newspapers, The Guardian, was raided by staff from GCHQ with the backing from Intelligence personnel from Whitehall, who demanded the editor destroy hard drives containing alleged files and documents pertaining to information sources by whistleblower Edward Snowden. On Sunday the partner of Glenn Greenwald, the Guardian journalist who coordinated the Snowden stories, was seized by British Intelligence when in transit at Heathrow Airport, held for 9 hours, threatened with imprisonment and had all his electronic devices taken for examination.


So, should we expect the Ecuador Embassy to be raided next despite the diplomatic fallout and other consequences, and Assange to be taken and given up to the Americans? It's no longer unlikely. For we are now witnessing a rampant state, on collision course with well, just about everyone? These signs have been apparent for a long while, though it is only now belatedly that the media are finally waking up to this. They must act before it is too late.


Alan Rusbridger, Editor of the Guardian revealed a shocking raid on the Guardian offices in London by British Security Service operatives…


"The mood toughened just over a month ago, when I received a phone call from the centre of government telling me: "You've had your fun. Now we want the stuff back." There followed further meetings with shadowy Whitehall figures. The demand was the same: hand the Snowden material back or destroy it. I explained that we could not research and report on this subject if we complied with this request. The man from Whitehall looked mystified. "You've had your debate. There's no need to write any more."


During one of these meetings I asked directly whether the government would move to close down the Guardian's reporting through a legal route by going to court to force the surrender of the material on which we were working. The official confirmed that, in the absence of handover or destruction, this was indeed the government's intention. Prior restraint, near impossible in the US, was now explicitly and imminently on the table in the UK. But my experience over WikiLeaks the thumb drive and the first amendment had already prepared me for this moment. I explained to the man from Whitehall about the nature of international collaborations and the way in which, these days, media organisations could take advantage of the most permissive legal environments. Bluntly, we did not have to do our reporting from London. Already most of the NSA stories were being reported and edited out of New York. And had it occurred to him that Greenwald lived in Brazil?


The man was unmoved. And so one of the more bizarre moments in the Guardian's long history occurred with two GCHQ security experts overseeing the destruction of hard drives in the Guardian's basement just to make sure there was nothing in the mangled bits of metal which could possibly be of any interest to passing Chinese agents. "We can call off the black helicopters," joked one as we swept up the remains of a MacBook Pro."


It was indeed bizarre as not only did Rusbridger point out to the GCHQ spooks that copies of the files were held elsewhere in the world, but there could have been other hard drives at the Guardian offices holding the same files, and why did the spooks insist the hard drives be destroyed instead of simply confiscating them? All sounds very theatrical more about intimidation than anything.


Even The Spectator, a centre-right magazine, could not believe what happened to David Miranda, the partner of Glenn Greenwald and in an article penned by the more left-leaning Nick Cohen and scathing of the police concluded " The Miranda affair is proof, if further proof is needed, that we are now stuck in the post-Leveson world where not only journalists but their partners can be detained and questioned for hours on end. Where police officers feel no need to explain themselves to the public, in whose name they work, and whose taxes pay their salaries. The next time they try to tell you that the secrecy and attempts to silence legitimate debate are in the public interest', do not forget what they did to David Miranda, because they can do it to you too."


Or as Simon Jenkins says, in another damning article : "I hesitate to draw parallels with history, but I wonder how those now running the surveillance state and their appeasers would have behaved under the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century. We hear today so many phrases we have heard before. The innocent have nothing to fear. Our critics merely comfort the enemy. You cannot be too safe. Loyalty is all. As one official said in wielding his legal stick over the Guardian: "You have had your debate. There's no need to write any more." Yes, there bloody well is."


Meanwhile the National Union of Journalist released a statement condemning the interrogation of Miranda…


The shocking detention of David Miranda for the crime of being the partner of a respected investigative journalist points to the growing abuse of so-called anti-terror laws in the UK. His detention and treatment was a gross misuse of the law and clearly linked to the work of his partner Glenn Greenwald, who revealed the extent of mass surveillance and wholesale interception of internet traffic by the US security services and its collusion with GCQH. It's rather ironic that the police's response, in turn, is to put the partner of a journalist under surveillance and detain him in this way.


Miranda had been used as a go-between by Greenwald and film-maker Laura Poitras, in Berlin, who had been working with him on the information supplied by Edward Snowden. This material has now been confiscated. Journalists no longer feel safe exchanging even encrypted messages by email and now it seems they are not safe when they resort to face-to-face meetings.


This is not an isolated problem. The NUJ believes that journalists are coming under more scrutiny and surveillance, being stopped at borders and their work interfered with, simply for doing their job. We are currently collating examples of such unacceptable interference across our membership. The treatment meted out to David Miranda is wholly unacceptable and it is time the use, or rather misuse, of terrorism legislation as a way of targeting individuals was properly and independently reviewed.


Finally, a travel warning: you may want to reconsider any travel that involves Britain, if only in transit. If you do travel there or via one of its airports, you may consider it prudent not to carry electronic devices, as they can be confiscated. Britain is now the Iran of Europe.

http://darkernet.in/miranda-interrogatio...of-europe/

[David Guyatt]

Has Mr. Snowden reveiled anything of consequence so far ? Is this some sort of "limited handout ?" Now the death of Michael Hastings is something that is of more concern. IMO, and I have no proof of this is that Hasting's was a real revealer of perfidy by the nation's military-intelligence elite and that Snowden is just show. Webster Tarpley, who is usually right in his analysis of world events, thinks Snowden is a fake whistleblower. Btw I just noticed that The Huffington Post is carrying a story that Mr. Hastings was drug addled at the time of "his accident."

Clearly it is not just show. They sat there pretending it was no big deal when Wikileaks started publishing their documents and cables but they have been increasingly breaking out in sweat and now the panic has set in to the point they are forcing down the planes of heads of state and sending the bovver boys into international newspapers to smash their hard drives. Snowden's revelations are highly embarrassing and completly exposing the real nature of the US and UK and Australian states (and some others). If they get their hands on him he will never see daylight again. It is because of the reserve insurance copies that nothing worse has happened.

I would also add that the publication of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court order compelling Verizon to turn over phone records of millions of its customers to the FBI shows that Snowden is, indeed, the genuine article imo.

While most of us deep politic watchers are aware that these sort of things have been going on for decades anyway, doesn't change the fact that the great unwashed masses did not know this. Now they do.